Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.

That you will need to take up with retro.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

We take out the wood statue of buddha from this temple and we use it as a fire wood.

One monk say: you are sinful, you burn the statue of Buddha. Another monk say: you are stupid, I burn the wood.

So, is that appearance a statue or a wood?

They way we see the thing as fix, close your eyes from other perspective, while in reality appearances can be seen from unlimited angle.

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

(a) The aggregates are designations that designate aggregations of dhammas.

(b) Dhammas are designations designated on the basis of mere appearances as they appear to unimpaired minds.

(c) All teachings and path structures are provisional expedients, oriented towards lessening and eventually eliminating defilements and fetters.

This paññattimatta interpretation has the advantage of not requiring ontological commitments while still accepting the appearances of functional things and the utility of conventional path language and terms.

Well said, Geoff.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Sylvester wrote:Retro would like to introduce an ontological dimension to the discussion

Wrong again... tilting at windmills.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

tiltbillings wrote:While I definitely agree with all of that, what would be interesting is tying all that to ther suttas.

Ven. Ñāṇananda has done some of the leg work on this. So did Candrakīrti 1400 years ago.

I know; however, I am not really asking for myself, but I am asking for those who have not read Ven Nanananda and who will likely never read Candrakīrti.

Given that I doubt any of us could do any better, those interested should probably consult Ven Nanananda instead. There's a reason the Nibbana Sermons go on for hundreds of pages (without interruption and interjection).

I can't speak for Candrakīrti, not being familiar with him or his works.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.

That you will need to take up with retro.

To be clear, I don't think MN 1 actually uses "aggregate"... I just slipped it into the "variable" position in the standard MN 1 formula for demonstration purposes, as I believe it applies equally.

There's plenty of other equivalencies listed in MN 1, including "The All", which Tilt has mentioned previously in this topic.

Beyond that, I think (from memory) that Nanananda also references MN 1. Bhikkhu Bodhi has also done an extensive commentary on the text, both his own, and a translation of the ancient commentary.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.

Could you pls point me to the passage in MN 1 that you quote above-

He perceive aggregate as aggregate

If you compare the sections on the worldlings versus the trainees, 3 contrasts are made, of which only 2 are stated in the imperative (ie to be done). Taking the most subtle of the contacts, ie Nibbāna -

He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Having perceived Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives [himself as] Nibbana. He conceives [himself in] Nibbana, he conceives [himself apart] from Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as "mine", he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

He knows Nibbana as Nibbana. Having known Nibbana as Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself as] Nibbana. He should not conceive [himself in] Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself apart] from Nibbana, he should not conceive Nibbana as "mine", he should not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he must fully understood it, I say.

The problem, as should be obvious, is the verb maññati, the process that constructs a sense of self/Self based on contact. In Early Buddhism and Theravada, you do not see maññati involved in existential or ontological ruminations.

Last edited by Sylvester on Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sylvester wrote:Retro would like to introduce an ontological dimension to the discussion

Wrong again... tilting at windmills.

Metta,Retro.

You may reject Western philosophical classifications of your ruminations, but the moment you strayed beyond existential quantifiers and ontic commitment, you entered the territory of Ontology (as is understood in Philosophy 101).

What Makes an Elder? :A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Nevermind "self" or "I" just for the moment (which themselves are not specified in the dictionary reference), but can you actually demonstrate this its use is to be so narrowly constricted and strait-jacketed, so as to preclude the act of taking them as "mine", because that's part of what I'm talking about here too - the full shebang...

MN 62 wrote:Then the Blessed One, looking back at Rahula, addressed him: "Rahula, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"

Of the five aggregates of appropriation, Ven. Nanananda says the following (emphasis mine)...

Ven. Nanananda wrote:“So where does pañcupādā­nakkhandha come in? Pañcupādā­nakkhandhā is the final result of the con­stant tus­sle between viññāṇa and nāma-rūpa. This is made clear in the Mahāsaḷāyatanika Sutta. What is gath­ered from the six viññāṇa–s, at the end, are fil­tered down to things grasped as “these are my forms, these are my feel­ings, these are my perceptions, …

"Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation[2] of the aggregate of form? What is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness?"

"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."

[2] - Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents, contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in SN 22.79.

Thus, aggregates (note: not just pañcupādā­nakkhandhā) are personally delineated, based on different experiential conditions, and the coloured section above shows when in the paticcasamuppada process each arises. Thus if aggregates need to be delineated to arise in the manner shown above, questions of a realism vs idealism nature (i.e. the underlying nature of what, if anything, such delineations might point to, separate from and independently of their delineation) can be set aside.

So how is support for the delineation of aggregates cut off in practice?...

The Blessed One said: "Monks, there are these five means of propagation. Which five? Root-propagation, stem-propagation, joint-propagation, cutting-propagation, & seed-propagation as the fifth. And if these five means of propagation are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & sun, mature, and well-buried, but there is no earth and no water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"

"No, lord."

"And if these five means of propagation are broken, rotten, damaged by wind & sun, immature, and poorly-buried, but there is earth & water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"

"No, lord."

"And if these five means of propagation are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & sun, mature, and well-buried, and there is earth & water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"

"Yes, lord."

"Like the earth property, monks, is how the four standing-spots for consciousness should be seen. Like the liquid property is how delight & passion should be seen. Like the five means of propagation is how consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form, established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling, established on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to perception, supported by perception, established on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications, established on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

That is my understanding. If you see that as "problem", that is your perception... let's hope you accord with the Buddha's advice and neither take it up as I, mine, or self.

And by all means disagree with my statement and citations if you like, that is your prerogative to do so... but please do so without any needless and unproductive histrionics, red herrings or strawmen. Thanks.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Whatever "aggregates" are ... I did not know anything about "aggregates" before having been told about "aggregates" but I have been experiencing anyway. So knowing about and naming something "aggregates" must be something belonging to the sphere of dependent origination. There would be no "aggregates" if I would not have been told about "aggregates".So basically "aggregates" seems to be just a conceptual tool for conceptual analysis.

Kind regards

Last edited by ground on Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Well for conceptualizing anyway, call it "analysis" or what you like to call it.

It can be for "conceptualizing," but it can also be a a tool for pushing beyond concepts.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

MN 109 wrote:Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Lord, how does self-identity view no longer come about?"

"There is the case, monk, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... does not assume perception to be the self... does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"This, monk, is how self-identity view no longer comes about."

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "What, lord, is the allure of form? What is its drawback? What is the escape from it? What is the allure of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness? What is its drawback? What is the escape from it?"

"Monk, whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on form: that is the allure of form. The fact that form is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of form. The subduing of desire & passion, the abandoning of desire & passion for form: that is the escape from form.

"Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on feeling: that is the allure of feeling...

"Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on perception: that is the allure of perception...

"Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on fabrications: that is the allure of fabrications...

"Whatever pleasure & joy arises dependent on consciousness: that is the allure of consciousness. The fact that consciousness is inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of consciousness. The subduing of desire & passion, the abandoning of desire & passion for consciousness: that is the escape from consciousness."

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Knowing in what way, seeing in what way, is there — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit?"

"Monk, one sees any form whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every form, as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"One sees any consciousness whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — every consciousness — as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"

"Monk, knowing in this way, seeing in this way, there is — with regard to this body endowed with consciousness, and with regard to all external signs — no longer any I-making, or my-making, or obsession with conceit."

Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"

Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of sixty monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentations.

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

I've still not seen any passage that says that it's the classification of what I'm clinging to (as I and mine) that is the problem. Certainly none of the recently quoted passages say anything like that, in my opinion. They all say that the clinging is the problem.

Feeling, perception and mental constructions are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.

Much of the discussion in this thread seems to imply that "aggregates" are little building blocks, which would, I think, be a mistake.

mikenz66 wrote:I've still not seen any passage that says that it's the classification of what I'm clinging to (as I and mine) that is the problem. Certainly none of the recently quoted passages say anything like that, in my opinion. They all say that the clinging is the problem.

Yes, clinging is the problem. But clinging to what? (i.e. does what you cling to fall outside of the five-aggregates? does clinging itself fall outside of the five-aggregates?). In considering that point, consider also the following sutta extract...

At Savatthi. "Monks, any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.

"And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called feeling.

"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.

"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications.

"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness

mikenz66 wrote:If hadn't heard aggregates would I be free from clinging?

I think you might be mixing my points with ground's? It kinda goes without saying that ignorance of the five-aggregate schema isn't sufficient to bring craving to an end... otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have had to teach.

mikenz66 wrote:Furthermore, what arises isn't "an aggregate".

What then did you make of this...?

MN 109 wrote:"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."

Thanissaro: Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents, contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in SN 22.79.

mikenz66 wrote:Much of the discussion in this thread seems to imply that "aggregates" are little building blocks, which would, I think, be a mistake.

I won't speak for other parts of the discussion, but my lengthy post to Sylvester above that you seem to be referencing made quite clear that aggregates arise through paticcasamuppada and are therefore divorced from matters pertaining to realism vs idealism, atomic units of reality, or other such ontological quandries. Aggregates arise due to paticcasamuppada, as is evident from MN 109 - ergo, aggregates arise due to avijja, and are thus sankhata (volitionally formed).

I'll leave you with one final thought - It's Retro's brainteaser for the day...

Can you have rising (and subsequent falling) without "delineation"? Doesn't having x arise, first require x's delineation as x? If so, how "bare" does that make "bare attention" of anything?

Metta,Retro.

"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)